MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094038673 · doi:10.1109/jestpe.2020.3033001

Robust Control of Wireless Power Transfer Despite Load and Data Communications Uncertainties

2020· article· en· W3094038673 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Power Transfer Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative feedback theoryRobust controlWireless power transferControl theory (sociology)Transfer functionComputer scienceControl engineeringController (irrigation)Compensation (psychology)WirelessControl systemEngineeringElectronic engineeringControl (management)TelecommunicationsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the robust control of wireless power transfer (WPT) systems, to work satisfactorily around the desired resonant frequency in the presence of load and data communications uncertainties. The proposed robust control system is based on the quantitative feedback theory (QFT), consisting of a feedback compensator and a prefilter, which are designed by shaping the system's frequency responses, to satisfy the design constraints defined in terms of stability, tracking, and other desired requirements. A feature of QFT is to provide the designer with interactive graphical tools for the design and tuning of the feedback compensator and prefilter. Without loss of generality, this article elaborates the design of the QFT-based robust control for a WPT system with a full-bridge inverter and series-series capacitor-based compensation circuits and uncertain direct-current (dc) load. The data communications uncertainties are also addressed in the design. The effectiveness of the proposed QFT-based robust control methodology is evaluated through simulations and practical experiments and compared with H <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">∞</sub> and Skogestad internal model control (SIMC) design methods. Since QFT is a model-based approach, this article also elaborates on small-signal transfer function modeling of WPT systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it